1.Short title; table of
contents
(a)This Act may be cited
as the Streamlined Procedures Act of
2005
.
(b)The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Mixed petitions.
Sec. 3. Amendments to petitions.
Sec. 4. Procedurally defaulted claims.
Sec. 5. Tolling of limitation period.
Sec. 6. Harmless error in sentencing.
Sec. 7. Unified review standard.
Sec. 8. Appeals.
Sec. 9. Capital cases.
Sec. 10. Clemency and pardon decisions.
Sec. 11. Ex parte funding requests.
Sec. 12. Crime victims' rights.
Sec. 13. Technical corrections.
Sec. 14. Application to pending cases.
2.Section 2254(b) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended—
(1)in paragraph (1),
by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
(A)the applicant—
(i)has exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State by fairly presenting and arguing the
specific Federal basis for each claim in the State courts; and
(ii)has described in the application
how the applicant has exhausted each claim in the State courts; or
(B)(i)the application
presents a claim for relief that would qualify for consideration on the grounds
described in subsection (e)(2); and
(ii)the denial of such relief is contrary
to, or would entail an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
;
and
(2)by adding at the
end the following:
(4)Any unexhausted claim that does not
qualify for consideration on the grounds described in this subsection shall be
dismissed with
prejudice.
.
3.
(a)Section 2244 of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
(e)(1)An application for a
writ of habeas corpus may be amended once as a matter of course before the
earlier of the date on which an answer to the application is filed or the
expiration of the 1-year period described in subsection (d).
(2)Except as provided under paragraph
(1), an application may not be amended to modify existing claims or to present
additional claims, unless the modified or newly presented claims would qualify
for consideration on the grounds described in subsection
(b)(2).
.
(b)Section 2242 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended in the third undesignated paragraph by striking in the rules of
procedure applicable to civil actions
and inserting under
section 2244(e)
.
4.Procedurally
defaulted claims
(a)Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1)by redesignating
subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i) and (j), respectively; and
(2)by adding after
subsection (g) the following:
(h)(1)A court, justice, or
judge shall not have jurisdiction to consider an application for a writ of
habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court with respect to any claim that was found by the State court to be
procedurally barred, or any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related
to such claim, unless—
(A)the claim would qualify for
consideration on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2); or
(B)the State, through counsel, expressly
waives the provisions of this paragraph.
(2)(A)A court, justice, or
judge shall not have jurisdiction to consider any claim that the State court
denies on the merits and on the ground that the claim was not properly raised
under State procedural law, or any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
related to such claim, unless the claim would qualify for consideration on the
grounds described in subsection (e)(2).
(B)A court, justice, or judge shall not
have jurisdiction to consider any claim that is otherwise subject to paragraph
(1) and that was reviewed by the State court for plain error, fundamental
error, or under a similarly heightened standard of review, unless the claim
would qualify for consideration on the grounds described in subsection
(e)(2).
(3)The State shall not be required to
answer any claim described in paragraph (1) or (2) unless the court first
determines that the claim would qualify for consideration on the grounds
described in subsection (e)(2).
(4)If a court determines that a State
court order denying relief on procedural grounds is ambiguous as to which
claims were found to be procedurally barred, the court shall resolve any
perceived ambiguity, if necessary, by examining the full record in the State
court.
(5)An application for a writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court shall not be granted with respect to any claim under paragraph (1) or (2)
unless the denial of such relief is contrary to, or would entail an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by
the Supreme Court of the United
States.
.
(b)Section
2244(d)(2) of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 3, is amended
by adding at the end the following: An application that was otherwise
improperly filed in State court shall not be deemed to have been properly filed
because the State court exercises discretion in applying a rule or recognizes
exceptions to that rule.
.
5.Tolling of
limitation periodSection
2244(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—
(1)in paragraph (2),
by striking judgment or
; and
(2)by adding at the
end the following:
(3)In this section, an application for
State post-conviction or other collateral review—
(A)is pending from the date on which the
application is filed with a State court until the date on which the same State
court rules on that application; and
(B)is not pending during any period of
time between the date on which a State court rules on that application and the
date on which the application or a related application is filed, or is
otherwise presented, for adjudication to such State court on rehearing
authorized by State law or to a higher State court.
(4)The period of limitation under
paragraph (1) may be tolled, suspended, or extended only as provided under this
subsection.
.
6.Harmless error
in sentencingSection 2254 of
title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
(k)A court, justice,
or judge shall not have jurisdiction to consider an application with respect to
an error relating to the applicant’s sentence or sentencing that has been found
to be harmless or not prejudicial in State court proceedings, unless a
determination that the error is not structural is contrary to clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
.
7.Section 107(c) of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (28 U.S.C. 2261 note) is
amended by striking Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code (as
amended by subsection (a))
and inserting This title and the
amendments made by this title
.
8.
(a)Section 2254 of title
28, United States Code, as amended by sections 4 and 6, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
(l)In review by a
court of appeals of a district court’s determination of an application for a
writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court, the following shall apply:
(1)A timely filed
notice of appeal from an order issuing a writ of habeas corpus shall operate as
a stay of that order, pending final disposition of the appeal.
(2)A court of
appeals shall decide the appeal from an order granting or denying a writ of
habeas corpus—
(A)not later than
300 days after the date on which the brief of the appellee is filed or, if no
timely brief is filed, the date on which such brief is due; or
(B)if a cross-appeal
is filed, not later than 300 days after the date on which the appellant files a
brief in response to the issues presented by the cross-appeal or, if no timely
brief is filed, the date on which such brief is due.
(3)(A)If a petition is filed
for a panel rehearing or rehearing by the court of appeals en banc following a
decision by a panel of a court of appeals under paragraph (2), the court of
appeals shall decide whether to grant the petition not later than 90 days after
the date on which the petition is filed, unless a response is required.
(B)If a response to a petition is
required under subparagraph (A), a court of appeals shall decide whether to
grant the petition not later than 90 days after the date on which the response
is filed or, if no timely response is filed, the date on which the response is
due.
(C)If a panel rehearing is granted, the
panel shall make a determination of the appeal on rehearing not later than 120
days after the date on which the order granting a panel rehearing is entered.
No second or successive petition for panel rehearing shall be allowed.
(D)If rehearing en banc is granted, the
court of appeals shall make a final determination of the appeal not later than
180 days after the date on which the order granting rehearing en banc is
entered.
(4)If a court of
appeals fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the State may
petition the Supreme Court, or a justice thereof, for a writ of mandamus to
enforce the requirements of this subsection.
(5)The time
limitations in this subsection shall apply in all proceedings in a court of
appeals on review of a district court’s determination of an application for a
writ of habeas corpus, including any such proceedings in a court of appeals
following a remand by the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
(6)In proceedings
following remand in a court of appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph
(2) shall begin on the date the remand is ordered if further briefing is not
required in the court of appeals. If there is further briefing in the court of
appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph (2) shall begin on the date on
which a responsive brief is filed or, if no timely responsive brief is filed,
from the date on which such brief is due.
(7)The failure of a
court to meet or comply with a time limitation under this subsection shall not
be a ground for granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence, nor
shall the time limitations under this subsection be construed to entitle a
capital applicant to a stay of execution, to which the applicant would
otherwise not be entitled, for the purpose of litigating any application or
appeal.
.
(b)Finality of
determinationSection 2244(b)(3)(E) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking the subject of a petition
and all
that follows and inserting the following: reheard in the court of
appeals or reviewed by writ of certiorari.
.
9.
(a)Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 2264 and inserting the following:
2264.
(a)Except as provided in
subsection (b), a court, justice, or judge shall not have jurisdiction to
consider any claim relating to the judgment or sentence in an application
covered under this chapter.
(b)A court, justice, or judge has jurisdiction
to consider an application under this chapter if—
(1)the applicant shows that the claim relies
on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(2)both—
(A)the factual predicate for the claim could
not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence;
and
(B)the facts underlying the claim, if proven
and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error,
no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the
underlying
offense.
.
(b)Section 2266(b)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking 180 days
and inserting 15
months
.
(c)Review by
Attorney General
(1)Section 2261(b) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(A)by striking
(b) This chapter is applicable if a State establishes
and
inserting the following:
(b)This chapter is
applicable if—
(1)the Attorney
General of the United States certifies that a State has
established
;
(B)in the first
sentence, by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
(C)by striking
The rule of court or statute must provide standards
and
inserting the following:
(2)the court,
statute, or other agency provides
standards
;
(D)by striking the
period at the end and inserting ; and
; and
(E)by adding at the
end the following:
(3)the order
required under subsection (c) is entered on or after the effective date of the
Attorney General's certification under section
2267.
.
(2)Technical and
conforming amendmentsSection 2265(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended—
(A)by striking
(a) For purposes
and inserting the following:
(a)(1)For
purposes
;
(B)by striking
This chapter shall apply, as provided in this section, in relation to a
State unitary review procedure if the State establishes
and inserting
the following:
(2)This chapter shall apply, as provided
in this section, in relation to a State unitary review procedure if—
(A)the Attorney General of the United
States certifies that a State has
established
;
(C)by striking
or by statute
and inserting , by statute, or by agency
rule
;
(D)by striking the
period after proceedings
and inserting a semicolon;
(E)by striking
The rule of court or statute must provide
and inserting the
following:
(B)the rule of the court, the statute, or
the agency rule
provides
;
(F)by striking the
period at the end and inserting ; and
; and
(G)by adding at the
end the following:
(C)the order required under subsection
(b) is entered on or after the effective date of the Attorney General's
certification under section
2267.
.
(d)Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
2267.
(a)If requested by the chief law enforcement officer of a
State, the Attorney General of the United States shall determine whether the
State has established a qualifying mechanism for the purpose of section
2261(b)(3) or 2265(a)(2)(C), and, if so, the date on which the mechanism was
established. The date the mechanism was established shall be the effective date
of the certification.
(b)The
Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to implement the certification
procedure under subsection (a).
(c)
(1)The Attorney General's determination of whether to
certify a State under this section is subject to review exclusively as provided
under chapter 158.
(2)The
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over matters under paragraph (1), subject to review by the Supreme
Court under section 2350.
(3)The Attorney General's determination of whether to certify
a State under this section shall be conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of
discretion.
.
(e)The table of sections for chapter 154 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended—
(1)by striking the
item related to section 2264 and inserting the following:
2264. Scope of Federal
review.
;
and
(2)by adding at the
end the following:
2267. Judicial
review.
.
10.Clemency and
pardon decisions
(a)Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
1370.State
clemency and pardon decisions
(a)Except as provided under subsection (b), and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal court shall have
jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from the exercise of a State’s
executive clemency or pardon power, or the process or procedures used under
such power.
(b)This
section does not affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review any
decision of the highest court of a State that involves a cause or claim arising
from the exercise of a State’s executive clemency or pardon power, or the
process or procedures used under such
power.
.
(b)The table of sections for chapter 85 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
1370. State clemency and pardon
decisions.
.
11.Ex parte
funding requestsSection
408(q)(9) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(q)(9)) is
amended—
(1)by striking (9) Upon
and
inserting the following: (9) (A) Upon
;
(2)by striking the last two sentences and
inserting the following: An application for services under this
paragraph shall be decided by a judge other than the judge presiding over the
post conviction proceeding under section 2254 or 2255 of Title 28, United
States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence. Any amounts
authorized to be paid under this paragraph shall be disclosed to the public
immediately.
; and
(3)by adding at the end the following:
(B)No
ex parte proceeding, communication, or request may be considered in a
post-conviction action pursuant to this section, except to the extent necessary
to protect any confidential-communications privilege between the defendant and
post-conviction counsel. The court shall not grant an application for an ex
parte proceeding, communication, or request unless the application has been
served upon the respondent and the court has allowed the respondent a
reasonable opportunity to answer the application. All proceedings,
communications, or requests conducted pursuant to this section shall be
transcribed and made a part of the record available for appellate
review.
.
12.Section 3771(b) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
A crime victim shall also be afforded the rights established for crime
victims by this section in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding arising out of a
State conviction.
.
13.
(a)Section
2253(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking
circuit justice or judge
and inserting district or
circuit judge
.
(b)Section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by designating the 8 undesignated paragraphs as subsections (a) through (h),
respectively.
14.Application to
pending cases
(a)This Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases pending on and after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(b)In a case pending on the date of enactment of this Act, if
the amendments made by this Act establish a time limit for taking certain
action the period of which began on the date of an event that occurred prior to
the date of enactment of this Act, the period of such time limit shall instead
begin on the date of enactment of this Act.